I find it so refreshing to talk with British evangelicals such as N. T. Wright and Richard Bauckham and others. Both of those fine gentlemen have read Reformed and Always Reforming and told me they consider themselves “postconservative evangelicals.” Both have also said they don’t find themselves embroiled in theological controversy as happens so often among evangelicals in the U.S.
Indeed. We seem to be the only country where evangelicals feel compelled to debate not just with vim and vigor but with serious intent to expose heresies among us and even cast each other out of the evangelical movement. (Of course, no one has the power to do that, but some try anyway! What else does “Farewell, Rob Bell” mean?)
This week I had the privilege of hearing and meeting Richard Bauckham–author or editor of something like 40 books of biblical scholarship and theology. He is widely regarded as one of the finest Christian scholars in the world today and his work is taken seriously even by those (mostly liberal scholars) who disagree with him. He considers the gospels histories and even, in some sense, biographies of Jesus. Without feeling the need to say anything about inerrancy or to harmonize everything in the four gospels he defends their basic historicity and reliablity as based on eyewitness testimony using technical tools of scholarship equal with or surpassing those used by skeptical critics.
Thank God for Wright and Bauckham and others like them who remind us American evangelicals that it is possible to be evangelical and progressive (not bound by past formulations or conclusions). Only (or primarily) in the U.S., it seems, do we have fundamentalists who have the power to dog cutting edge evangelical scholars and actually force them into constantly defending themselves against charges of heresy for fresh and faithful biblical scholarship.
So why do we have to do this? Why do progressive, postconservative evangelicals have to defend themselves? Why do I have to defend myself merely for defending open theism (as an evangelical option), Seventh-Day Adventists (some as truly evangelical), Rob Bell’s yet-to-be-published book (as something that should be read before being criticized), etc., etc.? (PLEASE know that I do NOT have to defend myself here–in my present professional context. My collagues and administrators have never pressured me or even implied that I need to conform to some conservative or fundamentalist agenda.)
The only reason is because SOME evangelical administrators are all too easily swayed by fundamentalist heresy-hunters with lots of influence over people with deep pockets and people with too much time on their hands to attack fellow evangelicals. Rather than standing up and defending their own broad tent views of evangelicalism, some (not all) cave in and allow the cranky, narrow-minded, backward-looking fundamentalists to make them overly cautious in hiring and firing and publishing and granting tenure, etc.
Example: I know a fine evangelical philosopher who was denied tenure at an evangelical seminary ONLY because he dared to interact sympathetically as well as critically with postmodern thinkers such as John Caputo. I have made it my business to read that philosopher’s works and I know, without any doubt, he is not a relativist. (Neither is Caputo, by the way!)
When I served for five years as editor of Christian Scholar’s Review we (the editorial board) worked hard to solicit scholarly manuscripts from faculty members of the nearly 50 supporting evangelical colleges and universities. Most of our manuscripts arrived from scholars NOT teaching in one of them. We decided to find out why. Our representatives went back to their schools and asked their colleagues. What they heard was that their colleagues were afraid to publish in CSR because they were afraid for their jobs. (Then CSR was provided free to every member institution’s entire faculty and administrators.)
LEST ANYONE SAY those scholars were liberal or anything like that–that’s not the case. They were solidly evangelical scholars who were simply afraid that one of evangelicalism’s many heresy hunters would jump on something they wrote (e.g., about evolution) and make such a federal case out of it (as has happened) that their administrators would feel obligated to discipline them in some way (e.g., by denying them tenure or salary increases, etc.).
I once wrote a letter to the editor of the local newspaper (where I used to work and live) explaining that Westboro Baptist Church (Fred Phelps’ church that pickets funerals) does not represent all Baptists’ views. In my lengthy letter (which was published in its entirety) I explained that Baptists are diverse and there is no “headquarters” of all Baptists. I explained that some Baptists are fundamentalists and some are liberals; some refuse to ordain women and some ordain women; some would never ordain a gay person and some do. (There were Baptist churches in that city all across that spectrum, but most people were Lutheran or Catholic and tended to tar all Baptists with the ultra-fundamentalist brush.)
My letter contained simply facts; it did not advocate anything except knowledge and understanding of Baptist diversity. Apparently my president was fine with it until a parent (who I later discovered was also a donor to the college) called him and complained about me to the point of suggesting I be fired! (I also found out later this man was a King James Only fundamentalist Baptist.) My president, with whom I got along very well, called me in and chided me for writing the letter and asked me to let him view and censor my letters to the editor henceforth. Of course, I refused. Why was he surprised when I left? (Well, it wasn’t for that alone, but partly, at least, because of that tendency to allow loud fundamentalists to cast a chill over academic freedom even to write completely innocuous letters to the editor!)
I could go on and on and on with similar examples from our American evangelical subculture. All too many administrators who are themselves moderate-to-progressive feel forced to cater to ultra-conservatives because they seem to have a lot of influence via their blogs and e-mail lists and youtube videos and podcasts and twittering and pastors conferences and tweets, etc., etc.
I envy the British evangelicals who, for the most part, agree to disagree among themselves and do their work for the Kingdom of God without fear of someone who agrees with them watching over their shoulders to censore or punish them JUST BECAUSE some ultra-conservative person with a following puts pressure on them. (I envy them NOT because I have anything to fear where I am now, but because I fear for younger evangelical scholars trying to do faithful, creative work in non-tenured positions in evangelical institutions.)
Maybe it’s the lack of political power for evangelicals in Britain that keeps this type of atmosphere away.
That’s one possible factor. But Britain never went through the turmoils of the fundamentalist controversy as deeply or broadly as we did in the U.S. The same is true of Canada. Here fundamentalism seems to have taken deep roots and keeps popping up just when we think it’s quietened down.
Roger,
Love this post. And, if you ever feel so inclined to move to Canada, we will accept you with open arms!
I think you flatter us Brits. I was highly amused by what is actually an appalling story from FF Bruce. In answer to a question, “Were sectarian barriers between Christians so impenetrable in the early part of the nineteenth century as is frequently asserted?” Bruce commented, “They were indeed more rigid than they are today. But the situation should not be exaggerated. The story of the Walkerites who, according to WB Neatby’s information, refused to unite with Thomas Kelly’s followers because the latter refused to commit themselves to the statement that John Wesley was in hell, reflects a degree of bigotry which would be extreme in any generation.”
As a matter of mild interest, those so up in arms about Rob Bell, what would they say about John Wesley?
Comparing Rob Bell with Wesley!? I agree little with much of Wesley’s theology but the man was a genius, a brilliant theologian and rob Bell is…..
Roger, how do you define a fundamentalist? When does someone begin to cross into the fundamentalist category?
Today fundamentalism seems to be defined two ways: 1) by a certain ethos or attitude with regard to doctrinal differences, and 2) by the doctrine and practice of “biblical separation” which really means “secondary separation.” First, fundamentalism appears whenever Christians elevate what have usually been considered secondary doctrinal matters to the status of litmus tests of authentic Christian faith; second, it appears whenever Christians refuse to have Christian fellowship with those who they believe are tainted by secularism or liberalism. For example, around 1920 William Bell Riley, fundamentalist pastor of First Baptist Church of Minneapolis, added premillennialism to the list of essentials of the Christian faith. Some of his followers broke from him and founded a rival Baptist church, school and seminary because they considered him insufficiently separated from liberalism because his church remained in the Northern Baptist Convention. I tend to regard as fundamentalist in spirit those evangelicals who spend a great deal of their time and energy seeking out heresies among their fellow evangelicals and defining as “heresies” theological proposals that are not really heretical but only non-traditional. I could go on, but that’s enough for now. A book could be written….
Oh how I love this post!
This gets right at the heart of my sentiments within American Christianity. From my view, it’s nothing more than mere bickering. It’s like, as you kind of say, we’re too bored so instead of teaching our kids how to fish or feeding a homeless guy breakfast, we want to pick apart the beliefs of someone else to prove mostly to ourselves that we’re right and they’re wrong. I just hate it. I’ve lived in America my entire life and have never left the country, but when I hear all the pointless arguments and religious noise, I want to leave. I want to buy a one-way ticket to somewhere else and just leave.
What I’ve admired about N.T. Wright – although I haven’t read very much – is that he keeps things in discussion. He gives his view, but doesn’t demand that you side with him or otherwise you’ll be deemed a heretic. It seems as though he invites you in to the discussion rather than berate you and force you to think like he thinks. Definitely looking forward to more N.T. Wright this summer
Of course, almost no evangelical of whatever stripe would envy the state of the British evangelical church as much as we might desire the charitable welcome of a less ideologically driven scholarship. There is a relationship between these two things I don’t have the time to explore. Deep pocket donors do present an issue. Maybe an evangelical version of George Soros would even things out a bit. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Dovetailing your recent remarks about annihilationism and this one is the following. When readers open the new third edition of The Fire That Consumes (which Christianity Today calls the standard reference on annihilationism), there waiting to greet them in the Foreword will be Professor Richard Bauckham of Cambridge, England, one of the world’s most highly-regarded biblical scholars.
In his Foreword, Professor Bauckham warmly commends The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment for dealing “so fully and thoroughly with all the relevant texts.” In Bauckham’s opinion, “a major strength” of The Fire That Consumes is the way it “takes full account of the Old Testament and the continuity in concepts and images of divine judgment between the two testaments.”
A thorough revision of the 1982 first edition, the third edition of The Fire That Consumes reaches the same conclusions, but in sleeker and more finished form, including its restructure in thirty-six chapters instead of twenty, almost all either substantially revised or completely new. Updating the scholarship by thirty years, this new edition of The Fire That Consumes maintains lively conversation with seventeen traditionalist authors who have published books since 1982.
The new edition will be released by Cascade Books, a division of Wipf and Stock reserved for books that “combine academic rigor with broad appeal and readability.” The Fire That Consumes is scheduled for release in time for the June 2011 Christian Scholars Conference at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif., and is also in line for release by Kindle.
Congratulations.
Excellent news. It’s now on my book list.
cheers,
J.
I hate that I wasn’t able to come to Bauckham’s lectures, he has been a favorite of mine since I was a student. This conflict may, in part, be the answer to your question concerning the lack of theological giants.
A suggestion from political culture: Americans are generally more independent-minded about religion and everything else. They are more entrepreneurial about their faith(s) and are leery of authorities of all stripes. This creates an environment of dynamic belief and individual owership of religion, but it also leads to a democtratic sense among the faithful that any given person has a right and obligation to guard his or her interpretation of proper theology. Fundamentalism is a byproduct of this environment.
In other words, American culture fosters a coupling of missionary fever with do-it-yourself guardianship of the faith. One problem is that many of these guardians (some with deep pockets) are less than enlightened.
I will loudly echo your sentiments on this, as I have seen the stark differences between British conversation and American discussion. Partly because of my experiences in an American seminary (which was a great experience with faculty and curriculum, but poor among student-discussion and willingness to engage), I started examining British doctoral programs. My hopes were confirmed in that my experiences with the NT seminars and conferences have been much more dialogue-oriented in Britain, as opposed to the adversarial nature we so often take in the American counterparts. The whole enterprise is set in the context of discussion rather than dogmatic reinforcement.
Brilliantly stated, Roger!
Roger,
While I appreciate much of what you have written you appear to have great zeal for battling “evangelical fundamentalists” but great tolerance when defending “progressive evangelicals”. I just want to remind you that those you so often criticize for thinking themselves the sentries of evangelicalism are also your brothers and sisters in Christ. In your battle beware lest you fall into the same kind of spirit that you so despise in others. I love you as a brother in Christ.
Steve
If you would read (and if you have then the following is even more relevant) Roger’s works and his blogs, you would know that he does not need your warning. Furthemore, it is not simply a matter of battling and tolerance, as if Roger has a soft spot for progressives (you will not in his work that he disagrees with aspects of “progressives” as well), it is that he disagrees with fundamentalists on this particular issue. On this issue it is not just so-called progressives that get it right, but also other types of evangelicals.
J.
Enjoyed Bauckham’s lecture Thursday as well as meeting you (albeit briefly) afterward.
Amen! Amen! and Amen! I find myself more and more drawn to non-American biblical scholars for these very reasons.
Poor definition of fundamentalist by any measure: a fundamentalist is a specifically American mutation of Biblical (historical) literalism coupled to a hyper-Calvinist. Basically, this is a very modern, very American movement.
In any case, the reason English Anglican “evangelicals” world view is not restricted by fundamentalism is because they are operating in a tradition that has never experienced this kind of backward anti-intellectualism. The Anglican Church may have been overly infected by Calvinism to remain truly ‘c’atholic in the sense of the Christianity prior to the Great Schism, but it still maintained a sense of ‘c’atholicity. Couple that with the broad diversity of theologies that were by necessity tolerated in the Anglican communion to have any communion at all.
This is why, of course, the Anglicans are both capable of producing the only developed minds in the “evangelical” world and why the communion itself has imploded.
Not all fundamentalists are Calvinists. Sorry my definition disappointed you. I don’t think yours is much better, though.
Sorry, but your definition is neither historically accurate, nor does it reflect the conclusions of those (esp. historians) who have examined this movement in a systematic way. Roger’s definition is much more like those definitions.
J.
I’ve heard that at some evangelical schools it is not, Publish OR perish, but Publish AND perish.
Great reflections (as usual), Dr. Olson! American evangelicals are preoccupied with finding a bizarre kind of holy grail–namely, evangelical consensus. While evangelicalism without question has some distinctive characteristics, said characteristics were not developed by a quorum of American evangelical bishops/clerics/figureheads who were imbued with authority from Jesus Christ, the Scriptures, or their denominational communities. So even when such ad hoc quorums convene to, let’s say, churn out the Chicago Declaration on the inerrancy of Scripture, such a quorum only serves as whitewash to cover up their lack of influence among the rank and file American evangelicals. At most, these scholars and pastors (mostly the latter) mistake the scholastic/academic influence they wield for the authority that the Spirit confers upon persons from within biblically faithful traditioning communities. So they are astonished when, after all their convening and all their articles and all their Together for the Gospel Coalition that God Desires Passion Glory Sovereign Blah Blah Blah conferences that the rank and file evangelicals still dare to ignore the evangelical consensus that they dogmatically advance. In truth, most believers are too busy trying follow Jesus to be so obsessed with being “evangelical” or thinking “evangelically.” In light of being largely ignored, some of these folks have more recently opted for creating false evangelical consensus via historical revisionism. A great recent example of this: Reformed pastor Thabiti Anyabwile’s “The Decline of African American Theology,” in which Anyabwile argues that Black American evangelicalism (is there such a thing?) was at its zenith back in the day when two colonial-era Black Calvinists–Lemuel Haynes and Jupiter Hamon–walked the earth. For Anyabwile, Black American Christianity has been in “decline” ever since departing from its Calvinist/Reformed moorings. I call this practicing historicity with frontal lobe lobotomy. Black American Christians have traditionally resisted Calvinism, which is why Anyabwile could only find about three of them. All those Black Methodist, Baptist, and charismatic/Pentecostal evangelists, abolitionists, prophets, and theologians would be shocked to find their kingdom efforts gathered under the umbrella of “decline” by such a shoddy historian. But I digress. Anyabwile’s book-length drivel is merely an illustration of the larger problem: American evangelicals want consensus on evangelicalism where there is none. And ever so often an ad hoc group of goofballs gets together to simultaneously “discover” and manufacture said consensus–even if historicism, Scripture, theological acuity, and fairness have to be cast to the wind. It just so happens that the neo-Reformed are the ones going the consensus-gathering (er, witch-hunting) right now. There were others before them. There will be others after them (if the Lord tarries, and I hope He doesn’t!). They are trying to make a unified, systematic tapestry by haphazardly playing connect-the-dots with evangelicalism’s characteristics. But characteristics and tendencies are not a solid foundation for the kind of consensus these folks are arguing for. I think American evangelicals pursue this false holy grail because we know deep down that we are a very young nation who sprang up (relatively) overnight. America is the result of the perfect storm of revolution, ingenuity, scientific/technological breakthrough, and philosophical/ideological explosions. Few nations, if any, have ever sprang up as quickly as it has, and even fewer, if any, have been as wildly successful. But we’re top-heavy on overnight success and short on unified tradition. So when our unity erodes from within, we’ve got to “discover” and manufacture tradition and history from without. The American church’s situation is reflective of that of her host nation. But rather than trying to find and strive for authentic unity under our authentic Head and Shepherd, the Lord Jesus, we would rather follow the way of our host nation by creating our own unity. Why? Because on the road growing up to the Head that is Christ (Eph. 4:13, 15) Jesus would have us exercise pesky virtues like humility, love, patience, and gentleness (Eph. 4:2). These virtues are not efficient, quick, or easy. They are messy. Because believers are growing up to our singular Head together heresy, doctrinal laxity, and moral filth MUST be rooted out; the truth that is in Christ Jesus demands this (Eph. 4:14-16). But such things must be rooted out as we practice the aforementioned virtues. So the road to waving “farewell” to a heretic must be first paved with love, humility, patience, and gentleness (along with convicting, Scriptural truth-telling!). Sure, this is inefficient heresy-hunting–definitely not the efficient, cost-cutting American way of removing gangrene from the Body of Christ–but if Jesus commands it, then the Body should do what the Head is saying. After all, as we grow corporately into our resurrected and enthroned Lord he will continue to thin out His herd by pointing out the knuckle-heads. But he’ll also demand that consensus be rallied around His person and work. It’s scandalous to think that in Christ’s mind false, polarizing “consensus” may be on par with some of our worst heresies. I guess that’s why selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, and hostilities are numbered among the fruit of the flesh right alongside sexual immorality, idolatry, and drunkenness (Gal . 5:19-21). Have fun at the next conference!
Roger as a Scot who has studied in the States and ministered and studied the rest of the time here in the UK, I would say you are broadly correct. There is much less drawing of lines among evangelicals here by and large. However the problem you refer to is not wholly absent.
About 6 years ago there was a huge outcry when British pastor and charity leader Steve Chalke published a book which seemed to attack penal substitution. I was at Asbury at the time and I seem to remember that Joel Green got caught in the cross fire at some debate run by the evangelical alliance on the issue.
Things are changing there and this is a generalisation but general enough to have some substance that Northern Ireland tends to have more theological controversy and attacks be fellow evangelicals on each other than in other parts of the UK. This may be because of a sort of siege mentality during the troubles which meant Protestants tended to draw very clear lines about who was in and out.
Here in Scotland the Presbyterian churches of a more hard lines type continue to have nasty little squabbles some of which have made it to court. We now have the Free Presbyterian Church, and its split the Associated Presbyterian Church, the Free Church of Scotland and its split, the Free Church of Scotland, Continuing, all of which to my Arminian eyes believe in exactly the same 5 point Calvinism, all worship with Psalms and no musical instruments and yet attack each other as to their relative purity or adherence to reformed doctrine.
So the UK is not devoid of these problems and of course with social networking and the internet many of the “discernment ministries” in the States are now spreading their influence here too and stirring things up in certain churches and circles.
Steve said, “This conflict may, in part, be the answer to your question concerning the lack of theological giants.” I wouldn’t say that there are not theological giants among British evangelicals. They just may be more humble, a lesson that “theological giants” in the U.S. could take to heart.
Great post, Dr. Olson! I have similarly been annoyed with all the heresy-hunting going on. Just yesterday we had a guest preacher come and bash liberal theologians in his “sermon” (which was more like a Fundamentalist seminary lecture) – thankfully he’s just a guest preacher that our deacon chair unknowingly invited and nothing more!
I have one question for you about your definition of fundamentalism. How do you differentiate self-proclaimed fundamentalists from those who fall into the category by their actions but do not claim to be among them?
I differentiate them by whether they are self-proclaimed fundamentalists or fall into that category by their actions but do not claim to be among them. My thesis is that if you scratch many people who call themselves “conservative evangelicals” you’ll find them bleeding fundamentalism. What has happened in the past 25 years (or so) is that as “fundamentalism” has been identified more and more with terrorism by the media, fewer and fewer theological fundamentalists claim that label. They began calling themselves “conservative evangelicals” and managed to convince a lot of moderate to progressive administrators (and media folks) that they are mainstream evangelicals. So, as you point out, there are self-identified fundamentalists (fewer and fewer all the time) and fundamentalists whose words and actions are virtually the same as the self-identified fundamentalists but who disavow the label. There really is no diffference except the label. So I look at the actions (rushing to expose heresy among fellow evangelicals, constantly negative and critical toward evangelicals they perceive as “to the left” of them, woodenly literalistic biblical interpretation, anti-intellectualism toward science and philosophy, reluctance if not outright refusal to have Christian fellowship with those they disagree with, etc. For example, I was once invited to a conference of very conservative Reformed theologians to present Arminianism (which they all equate with semi-Pelagianism). Going there I thought perhaps they weren’t fundamentalists as I suspected. But once there, for several days, I noticed none of them would sit and eat with those of us who weren’t part of their group. The Arminians and open theists present sat at table and ate together (with empty places at the tables) and the hosts of the conference walked by–often stopping to talk to us but never sitting down to eat with us. Soon it was obvious to those of us not of their theological persuasion that they were consciously avoiding eating with us. They had no problem talking with us–even at length. But they would not sit at table and eat with us. Also, I noticed there was never a prayer offered at any of the sessions. All-in-all the most reasonable conclusion was that our hosts did not consider us true Christians or they considered us heretics and, whichever was the case, they did not think us worthy of table fellowship or common prayer. That’s separationism in action. That’s fundamentalism.
Those of us who lean towards the “new perspective on Paul” would love to note the irony of one group of Christians refusing to eat with another. The situation of table fellowship invoked from Paul the first use of “not justified by works of the law but by faith…” (Gal 2:16) The very issue (“justification”) which many Reformed minded folk are using to draw lines of separation between Christians, was first invoked to do the opposite. Thank you Paul of Tarsus.
Sorry about you experience Dr. Olson at the conference. Perhaps next time you could do a quick study with your hosts on justification in Galatians. . . before lunch time, of course.
I’ve heard it said, although I’m not quite sure how true this is, that evangelicals in other English speaking nations such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Britain, are opposite American evangelicals in political alliances. Apparently in other English speaking nations, evangelicals are more to the far left as social justice is the rallying cry for believers there, while here there’s more of a push for legislated morality on individual isses and personal behaviors. It seems to me that we could take a lead from evangelicals in other Western nations in helping sovle social issues that affect us all such as poverty, world hunger, etc., rather than always focusing on morality of non-believers private lives. I’ve also heard that the evangelical church make up in England is far more racially and ethnically diverse than are many congregations in the United States, as immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa helped to contribute to their demographics. They also seem not to force separation barriers between the labels liturgical or high church and the label evangelical the way that many evangelicals in the United States that I know seem to think exists.
In Canada we have a viable left wing party (call the New Democrat Party, though they are only a minority party federally), and the two major parties–Conservative and Liberal–who take turns at governing. Both major parties are very centrist, with the conservatives being closer to the American democrats on many issues than to the republicans. Furthermore, being parliamentarian systems, Britain, Canada and Australia often have minority governments that must make compromises and deals to govern effectively (more so, and in more significant ways than in the american republican system). Canada is also one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world (in our largest city, Toronto, almost exactly half of the residents have a mother tongue other than English), and it is difficult to form a government without appealing to immigrants. Finally, our two founding nations are constitionally English and French, and the French population is (was) almost all catholic and very liberal after the (french/Quebecois cultural revolution of the 60s). We also don’t have Southern Baptist as a major denomination and cultural force.
Consequently, even though we have our share of conservative evangelicals, and very American influenced evangelicals here, we often see the American evangelical scene as quite foreign. On my part, even though I’ve read lots of American material for years, I’m still frequently bemused or boggled by what goes on down there.
J.
Oh dear brother, to live a world where the SBC hasn’t got so much power as a force in politics and culture. I love the Baptists down here, but in my state (which mixed between Baptists in the north and Catholics in the central and southern area, with a strong minority of Pentecostals and Methodists) they are too controlling over evangelical institutions. I love the idea of a ‘Big Tent Evangelicalism’ which is welcoming in diversity and where folks agree to disagree on many issues. The whole idea of Evangelicalism that I love is that nobody controls power or sway over another’s rights or expression of beliefs. But alas it seems to me, sadly, that the evangelicals in the SBC have been replaced by the fundamentalists. They may package themselves in evangelical attire, but in the end, they are indeed fundamentalists. I don’t exactly disslike fundamentalists either, I just don’t like it when anyone attempts to take over another group rather than letting them be themselves in beliefs and expression, etc.
There are two reasons for this stark contrast, in my opinion. First, American Conservative Evangelicals often place eternal destiny as the primary issue to resolve, understandably – what good is temporary social justice to someone destined for an eternity in hell? – and often use social justice as a means to reach the lost. Second, while both groups (US and Ex-US) care about social justice, those in the US (mostly Republican) feel that the issue is the direct charge of the Church and not the Government. In the US, the notable difference between political Liberals and Conservatives is their view of Government’s role in curing social ills. Conservative Christians think the Church should take the lead (apart from Government) and Liberal Christians tend to behave as though the Government should take the lead and the Church should lobby the Government in the right direction. For Conservatives, such as myself, this view, especially for secularists, appears to put Government in the place of Church and/or God, with taxes essentially becoming one’s “tithe” to one’s secular “god.”
Of course, the disappointing thing in all this is that there is clearly common ground to rally around here, and the opportunity is being largely missed in favor of squabbling over political and theological disagreements. While the issue of abortion is understandably huge and divisive, the issue that seems to be supplanting this is homosexual rights. I’m not saying the latter is unimportant, however, its relative scale, affecting such a small (yet vocal) minority, does not place it in the same ballpark, and it should not have the divisive capacity it does here.
Roger:
Your analysis about differences between British and American evangelicalism is better in some respects than in others. What is hardly disputable is that evangelicalism is more elastic in Britain and on the Continent than it is here. The question is why?
1. George Marsden seems to have been the first American to argue (without a lot of success) that Britain never had a fundamentalist movement akin to that of North America. But the contrary evidence has kept cropping up ever since he made the proposal a quarter century ago. A good number of North American fundamentalist leaders were themselves British: W.H. Griffith Thomas, Campbell Morgan and T.T. Shields had connections and influence on both sides of the pond. And, in the 19th century, Spurgeon had led a division in the Baptist Union of England and Wales. In 1910, the ‘root’ from which the modern Inter Varsity movement has grown, separated from the liberal-trending Student Christian Movement at Cambridge University, with tremendous repercussions not only for Britain but the wider evangelical movement. In the same era, British mission agencies sometimes divided over liberal-conservative theological tensions.
2. Having said this, there was less ecclesiastical division in UK churches over the rise of fundamentalism than was true in North America. For reasons that are not entirely clear (I suspect economics were a factor) a much greater swath of British conservative evangelicalism remained within broad and comprehensive denominations (Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian) than on this side of the pond. This meant that a high degree of readiness to co-exist with other doctrinal viewpoints was required of British evangelicals in a way not required in this country. Having said this, the burgeoning Pentecostal movement in Britain (as in North America) was itself largely intertwined with early twentieth century fundamentalism, while _not_ being comprehended within the mainline denominations in Britain or here. Its separateness gave it slightly greater affinity with separatistic conservative evangelicalism in North America.
3. North American evangelicalism’s readiness to draw the doctrinal circle ‘tight’ is, to a large degree an extension of a) ecclesiastical divisions of the early twentieth century which themselves had rather obvious doctrinal faultlines and b)the resources of the relative affluence of American culture which both made and still makes the funding of new church and educational enterprises less daunting than in other countries with less disposable income. North American conservative evangelical culture has money.
4. To conclude, Bauckham, whom we all admire, spent the preceding week in another major Baptist institution in Louisville – a school known for its conservative theological rigor. It is a credit to both Bauckham and SBTS that they could strike an ‘alliance’ for a week which transcended usual patterns. Would that we all saw more of this!
Ken Stewart
Pingback: Week in Review: 03.12.2011 | Near Emmaus
Pingback: Kingdom Chronicles For The Week Ending 3/12/11 « παλιγγενεσία: The Regeneration
Things in the UK have not always been rose colored with the treatment of some so-called Evangelical teachers. William Barclay was not always accepted in many of his personal ideas (thank God!). But, as much as Barclay was a good man personally, he was indeed not a classic Evangelical certainly. So the real question always turns around, what really is an Evangelical? Here is the British ‘Open Evangelicalism’ (something Wright likes to define, or at least use). But, sadly often these things just get more muddled!
Thankfully British Evangelical history goes much deeper than both Wright or Bauckham!
I have lived in the USA (where I presently reside), Canada, England, Germany, and Austria (and hold passports to three of those countries). There are certainly tensions in each of them (e.g. Canada has its own Bible belt, where some of the US tensions can be found; Germany has had tensions between various orthodox groups), and despite these tensions, I basically agree with you Roger. One has to work at “dodging bullets” in the USA (less so as I get older and care less about career) in a way one does not in the other countries. One reason, perhaps, is the intellectual tradition on the other side of the “pond” which has been less evident (less, not totally non-evident) here; another more contemporary reason is that some of the countries are more post-Christian so the orthodox realize that they need all the friends they can find and cannot afford to exclude any of them. Of course, on political positions and social issues, most of those countries have lived with and thrived under situations that our more right-wing brothers and sisters in the USA see as signs of “the end of the world,” which makes them rather bemused onlookers of the USA evangelical scene. But these are personal musings, not social scientific studies, so take them for what they are worth.
I’m sure someone will correct me, but… Not long ago I read an article about U.S. socialists emigrating to Canada in the 1920s and 1930s. They were, for the most part, evangelical Christians. They established a strongly progressive/liberal political system combined with conservative theology in certain central provinces of Canada such as (as I recall) Manitoba.
Hi Roger,
Thank you for the article.
I suspect that at least part of the difference between evangelicals in the U.S. and in England is that we have a lot more of them. Your article reminded me of when I was in the Marine Corps 25 years ago. At one point, among the junior officers there were maybe 3 or 4 officers who were self-consciously Christian spread over 5 different ships. When we hit shore we would hang out together, pray together, study the Bible together, etc … The very differences that which we would have separated over in the U.S. suddenly didn’t seem like such a big deal. Yet, the U.S. has so many people who call themselves evangelicals that it is easy to get together with a group that shares a large number of our distinctives.
A second problem is that there really isn’t anything that defines an evangelical other than what other self-described evangelical are willing to accept. I mean the following as a serious question: You say that you defened open-theism as an evangelical option; but why should anyone take your word for this? If you convince enough people to go along with you, than open-theism will be an evangelical option and you will end up being considered correct. On the other hand, if those who disagree with you convince the rest of evangelicals that open-theism isn’t an evangelical option – than it will not be one – and you will be seen as someone who was oddly barking into the wind at that point. The “correct” answer is simply being created rather than being discovered. In this sense, perhaps Darryl Hart’s book Deconstructing Evangelicalism is on target.
David
I agree with what you say–up to a point. But part of my argument is descriptive and not only prescriptive. The evangelical movement includes open theists. Some within the movement may wish it didn’t, but it does. By that I mean they grew up evangelical and/or have taught in evangelical institutions and published with evangelical publishers, etc. In one sense, “evangelical theology” is simply theology done by evangelicals (people within the movement). But you are right when it comes to the prescriptive sense of “evangelical option.” But it’s not only true for me; it’s also true for those attempting to “kick people out” of the evangelical movement. All they can do is raise their voices and try to convince as many people as possible to agree with them. What if nobody (such as I) spoke up in defense of a broader meaning of evangelical? Sometimes it seems whoever has the loudest voice and can manage to get on Larry King Live or a similar TV or radio talk show wins.
Thanks Roger. I appreciate your feedback.
One of the reasons why I don’t really care whether or not someone calls me an evangelical is because the term really isn’t very descriptive. Although I am a traditional Protestant, I am closer to some Roman Catholics than I am to some Evangelicals. Perhaps you can save the term for some useful pursoses.
Best wishes,
David
“Maybe it’s the lack of political power for evangelicals in Britain that keeps this type of atmosphere away.”
Might be part of the reason… but in Germany the “evangelicals” (who call themselves “evangelikal”, not “evangelisch”) are more like those in the US – although they have not much political power (almost none). They usually don’t work in the context of an university but in private seminaries (which is an unusual thing in Germany, where theological education is part of the universities sponsored by the state).
Only at the universities you could find some people like Wright and Bauckham:
Martin Hengel (who died), Klaus Berger (who is emeritus and ‘converted’ to Catholizism) and Rainer Riesner. Riesner is 60 or so now, so there aren’t many like them coming after them… But, by the way: Bauckham and Wright are in there 60ties to. Are there academically respected young “post-conservative evangelicals” in Britain or the US?! Or is this “movement” already dying out all over the world?
At least here in the United States, it seems almost impossible to become “academically respected” (outside evangelical circles) if one is associated with the evangelical movement in any way. Labeling oneself “evangelical,” even with the qualifier post-conservative, is the kiss of death in the secular or liberal academy. To the best of my knowledge no self-identified evangelical has ever been elected president of the American Academy of Religion even though the Evangelical Theology Group is large and flourishing. When I was a graduate student at a secular university with a religious studies department (up through Ph.D.) an evangelical professor of theology with an Oxford doctorate and publications was interviewed for an open position in religious studies but blackballed by a liberal Methodist member of the department because he was “too evangelical.” One person who I think should qualify for “academically respected” and evangelical is Kevin Vanhoozer, but as long as he teaches at a place like Wheaton he will probably be wrongly neglected by the secular and liberal academic elites.
Roger, this is the most insightful post I have read in quite sometime. I keep hearing about how awesome you are, and this post just convinced me. I have your book “How to be Evangelical W/out Being Conservative” and will hopefully read it this summer while I am on break from Seminary. I also pre-ordered your book “Against Calvinism.” I am a young Mennonite Brethren leader who has been shaped by thinkers like Wright, and I have a feeling your influence will be there as well. Have a wonderful weekend. Peace.
I’m 35, but just 15 years or so ago qualifications for what makes someone “solid” or not would have been clearly defined in my mind. I now no long even use that term, which I consider ridiculous. While I am concerned that theological positions be well-developed and do reject certain views that I consider clearly unsupportable from canonical Scripture (Arianism, Modalism, etc), I tend to be far more tolerant now than in times past. In the end, it isn’t my job to say who’s in our out. My task is to proclaim the good news that Jesus is Lord and live it out the reality of the new creation, by the grace of God.
Great post and very good blog.
This is an outstanding post. At the end, you said:
“I envy the British evangelicals who, for the most part, agree to disagree among themselves and do their work for the Kingdom of God without fear of someone who agrees with them watching over their shoulders to censore or punish them JUST BECAUSE some ultra-conservative person with a following puts pressure on them.”
Because of how highly I value your perspective, I am sorry to differ with you on this point. I am a full-time Christian worker in Europe and I am sorry to say that much of what is going on among American evangelicals is going on among many of my British evangelical colleagues, although on a smaller scale. N.T. Wright is just one example. Some British evangelicals will tend to judge one’s orthodoxy by how positively one speaks of N.T. Wright. Those I am speaking of are the rather sizable camp of conservative neo-Reformed, among both Anglican and evangelical churches. They tend to read, listen to and watch the same Christian leaders as the conservative neo-Reformed people in the U.S.
They are quite influential in European evangelical circles, and I think you will one day run into some of them.
Keep up the excellent work!
Ah, another American export being used in Britain?
I know I’m late to the party, but I just want to say, Roger, your book on “post-conservative” has so influenced me that the concept has functioned as the subtitle to my blog for two years now: “Post-Conservative Musings of an Already but Not Yet Life”.
Thanks
Another late comment, from a Brit.
Evangelicalism in England is a bit of a paradox. Yes, on one hand we are a much smaller group than in the US and so we’re far less prone to power struggles and theological squabbles. On the other hand, there are very deep fault lines between the different streams. I haven’t the time, let alone the ability, to analyse this.
Our Evangelical Alliance recently did some research into different views within UK evangelicalism. The results can be found at:
http://www.eauk.org/snapshot/read.cfm
(Both the report and the data report can be downloaded and are worth reading).
However, in my view, there are methodological shortcomings in this study. The surveys were conducted primarily at festivals, plus some member churches and black-majority churches. But the festivals are mostly at the charismatic end of evangelicalism, and there are churches who are not members of the Alliance as they see it as charismatic, ecumenical, and maybe even liberal. The strong correlation between the festival data and the church data suggests both are from the same subset of evangelicalism. I can’t say how significant these shortcomings are – certainly many of the groupings who might be under-represented are not large, but they are still part of the evangelical community.
I hope this is of interest to people.
Pingback: Open Mic: Heresy Hunters and The “American Spirit” | internetmonk.com
One factor in all this which seems more distinctly ‘American’ is our individualistic spirit, which tends turn “ye” passages in the Bible into “me” passages. God’s concern for each person focuses so much attention that His concern for His body is often left in the fog.
Pingback: Open Mic: Heresy Hunters and The “American Spirit” | Church Ministry Center